Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: governor: Drop gov_cancel_work()

2016-06-09 Thread Viresh Kumar
On 09-06-16, 14:21, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 5:21 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > On 09-06-16, 01:45, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >> From: Rafael J. Wysocki > >> > >> There's no reason for gov_cancel_work() to exist at all, as it only > >> has one caller and the only thing don

Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: governor: Drop gov_cancel_work()

2016-06-09 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 5:21 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 09-06-16, 01:45, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> From: Rafael J. Wysocki >> >> There's no reason for gov_cancel_work() to exist at all, as it only >> has one caller and the only thing done by that caller is to invoke >> gov_cancel_work(). >> >>

Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: governor: Drop gov_cancel_work()

2016-06-08 Thread Viresh Kumar
On 09-06-16, 01:45, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > From: Rafael J. Wysocki > > There's no reason for gov_cancel_work() to exist at all, as it only > has one caller and the only thing done by that caller is to invoke > gov_cancel_work(). > > Accordingly, drop gov_cancel_work() and move its contents t

[PATCH] cpufreq: governor: Drop gov_cancel_work()

2016-06-08 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
From: Rafael J. Wysocki There's no reason for gov_cancel_work() to exist at all, as it only has one caller and the only thing done by that caller is to invoke gov_cancel_work(). Accordingly, drop gov_cancel_work() and move its contents to the caller. Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki --- drive